Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems

Joost Berkhout, Jan Beyers, Caelesta Braun, Marcel Hanegraaff, David Lowery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Scholars of mobilisation and policy influence employ two quite different approaches to mapping interest group systems. Those interested in research questions on mobilisation typically rely on a bottom-up mapping strategy in order to characterise the total size and composition of interest group communities. Researchers with an interest in policy influence usually rely on a top-down strategy in which the mapping of politically active organisations depends on samples of specific policies. But some scholars also use top-down data gathered for other research questions on mobilisation (and vice versa). However, it is currently unclear how valid such large-N data for different types of research questions are. We illustrate our argument by addressing these questions using unique data sets drawn from the INTEREURO project on lobbying in the European Union and the European Union’s Transparency Register. Our findings suggest that top-down and bottom-up mapping strategies lead to profoundly different maps of interest group communities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)43-62
Number of pages20
JournalPolitical Studies
Volume66
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2018

Fingerprint

interest group
mobilization
transparency
community

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Berkhout, Joost ; Beyers, Jan ; Braun, Caelesta ; Hanegraaff, Marcel ; Lowery, David. / Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research : Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems. In: Political Studies. 2018 ; Vol. 66, No. 1. pp. 43-62.
@article{1119aaee27af4be48d6b25ff493fb48d,
title = "Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems",
abstract = "Scholars of mobilisation and policy influence employ two quite different approaches to mapping interest group systems. Those interested in research questions on mobilisation typically rely on a bottom-up mapping strategy in order to characterise the total size and composition of interest group communities. Researchers with an interest in policy influence usually rely on a top-down strategy in which the mapping of politically active organisations depends on samples of specific policies. But some scholars also use top-down data gathered for other research questions on mobilisation (and vice versa). However, it is currently unclear how valid such large-N data for different types of research questions are. We illustrate our argument by addressing these questions using unique data sets drawn from the INTEREURO project on lobbying in the European Union and the European Union’s Transparency Register. Our findings suggest that top-down and bottom-up mapping strategies lead to profoundly different maps of interest group communities.",
author = "Joost Berkhout and Jan Beyers and Caelesta Braun and Marcel Hanegraaff and David Lowery",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0032321717702400",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "43--62",
journal = "Political Studies",
issn = "0032-3217",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research : Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems. / Berkhout, Joost; Beyers, Jan; Braun, Caelesta; Hanegraaff, Marcel; Lowery, David.

In: Political Studies, Vol. 66, No. 1, 01.02.2018, p. 43-62.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research

T2 - Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems

AU - Berkhout, Joost

AU - Beyers, Jan

AU - Braun, Caelesta

AU - Hanegraaff, Marcel

AU - Lowery, David

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Scholars of mobilisation and policy influence employ two quite different approaches to mapping interest group systems. Those interested in research questions on mobilisation typically rely on a bottom-up mapping strategy in order to characterise the total size and composition of interest group communities. Researchers with an interest in policy influence usually rely on a top-down strategy in which the mapping of politically active organisations depends on samples of specific policies. But some scholars also use top-down data gathered for other research questions on mobilisation (and vice versa). However, it is currently unclear how valid such large-N data for different types of research questions are. We illustrate our argument by addressing these questions using unique data sets drawn from the INTEREURO project on lobbying in the European Union and the European Union’s Transparency Register. Our findings suggest that top-down and bottom-up mapping strategies lead to profoundly different maps of interest group communities.

AB - Scholars of mobilisation and policy influence employ two quite different approaches to mapping interest group systems. Those interested in research questions on mobilisation typically rely on a bottom-up mapping strategy in order to characterise the total size and composition of interest group communities. Researchers with an interest in policy influence usually rely on a top-down strategy in which the mapping of politically active organisations depends on samples of specific policies. But some scholars also use top-down data gathered for other research questions on mobilisation (and vice versa). However, it is currently unclear how valid such large-N data for different types of research questions are. We illustrate our argument by addressing these questions using unique data sets drawn from the INTEREURO project on lobbying in the European Union and the European Union’s Transparency Register. Our findings suggest that top-down and bottom-up mapping strategies lead to profoundly different maps of interest group communities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041338923&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041338923&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0032321717702400

DO - 10.1177/0032321717702400

M3 - Article

C2 - 30369638

AN - SCOPUS:85041338923

VL - 66

SP - 43

EP - 62

JO - Political Studies

JF - Political Studies

SN - 0032-3217

IS - 1

ER -